Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit "Schedules 3 and 4", substitute "Schedules 3, 4 and 5".

In brief, I'm going to move an amendment after this, but I have moved this amendment separately because I understand that the government is going to support this amendment. I'll speak to all amendments in my second speech.

Question agreed to.

I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name:

(2) Page 37 (after line 11), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5 — Extreme circumstances forcing departure from place of residence

Social Security Act 1991

1 Section 1061JH (heading)

Omit "home", substitute "place of residence".

2 Paragraph 1061JH(1)(a)

Omit "his or her home", substitute "where the person has been residing".

3 Paragraph 1061JH(1)(b)

Omit "remain in, or return to, the home", substitute "remain, or return to, where the person has been residing".

4 Paragraph 1061JH(1)(c)

Repeal the paragraph.

5 Paragraph 1061JH(1)(e)

Omit "7 days", substitute "14 days".

It is no secret that Australia is in a domestic and family violence crisis. One in four women and one in 14 men have experienced violence by an intimate partner. According to the Status of women report card, 37 women were killed by a current or former intimate partner in 2024. This is why I welcome this legislation, particularly the extension of the special circumstances waiver. This will finally make provision for victims-survivors of financial abuse who have provided false information as a result of coercive control. It was a key recommendation of the 2024 parliamentary inquiry into financial abuse.

When I speak to community legal centres, peak bodies and survivor advocates, the message is clear: we must not only support those in crisis but ensure that systems are there for people when they have made the brave decision to leave. That is what my amendment seeks to do. It focuses on the family violence crisis payment, a one-off non-taxable payment designed to support people experiencing extreme circumstances and severe financial hardship. Right now, it is not working the way it should. According to the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee 2025 report, only half of potentially eligible people access the crisis payment and many are rejected on technical grounds. That is not what crisis response should do. Victims-survivors who are navigating police reports, relocating children, enrolling in new schools or seeking medical support are being penalised because they do not file paperwork in time or because their housing situation does not meet the outdated bureaucratic definition. This must change.

Firstly, I'm calling on the government to extend the seven-day claim period. Seven days is an incredibly short period of time when someone is in trauma and in chaos. Survivors often do not know the payment even exists within that timeframe, let alone have the capacity to fill out the Centrelink paperwork and navigate online portals or prove the case while they're in hiding. The 2025 report found that 7.7 per cent of rejections were due to missed deadlines, including many more who had never applied because they were already outside the time limit. A short window should not be the reason why someone cannot receive help in a moment of need.

Secondly, my amendment covers the definition of 'home'. Under the current rules, it is too narrow. Many of the most vulnerable victims-survivors live or are forced to move to informal, temporary or unsafe accommodation such as tents, hostels or crisis refuges, which are not legally defined as 'home' in the act. This disproportionately effects people who are already on the margins. I urge the government to replace the word 'home' with 'place of residence' in the legislation, to ensure we do not exclude those most in need.

Thirdly, the current rules require that the applicants show they're establishing a new home. This is unnecessary. Under the Social Security Act, a person must already demonstrate they cannot return to their previous home. It is unreasonable to expect them to. Requiring evidence that a person is setting up a new permanent home, especially in the middle of a housing crisis, is unrealistic and counterproductive. The government's own figures show that 13.8 per cent of crisis payment claims were rejected due to this condition or because the perpetrator was not formally registered as living with the applicant. Survivors may be moving from couch to couch, refuge to refuge. The system should recognise that fleeing violence, not whether the new lease has been signed, is the crisis.

These changes are small, commonsense adjustments, but they could be the difference between someone getting real support when they need it and falling through the cracks. It is all about the detail for them. This payment can be life-saving. It helps pay for housing bonds, new school uniforms, urgent medical costs or simply a safe night in a motel. It can offer a moment of dignity in a moment of chaos and can help a survivor and their children take their first steps on a life free from violence.

I thank the government for its ongoing commitment to addressing family and domestic violence. I thank the minister for the constructive engagement we have had on this amendment. I urge the government and the minister to adopt this amendment and to support these changes that have been recommended by experts, including the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, and been well supported by the people I speak to in the sector, including those who have survived this experience themselves. Let's make the crisis payment work for the people it's meant to serve. I commend this amendment.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Wentworth for the chance to discuss this amendment with her. The government is broadly supportive of the direction she's seeking to take, but there are a couple of things I need to draw to the attention of the House.

We completely agree that someone who's fleeing a violent living situation should be able to focus on their safety first and apply for the crisis payment once they're able to do so. Since this crisis payment was introduced, however, the government has also, in addition, introduced the leaving violence payment, which is up to $5,000 for someone who's fleeing violence. The leaving violence payment is much more flexible than the crisis payment.

I'd also note that there is already flexibility built into the application process for the crisis payment for people who've experienced family, domestic or sexual violence. For example, for a person who has left their home due to family, domestic or sexual violence, it's not that they have seven days to apply for it; they have seven days from the date they decide they cannot return to their home to submit a claim. That might be several weeks after they've left their home. In addition, Services Australia can also provide an additional 14 days to submit a claim where a person has experienced family and domestic violence. We're prepared to look at the suggestion to standardise the 14 days, but I think it's important to note that there is already flexibility and that an additional payment has been introduced since the crisis payment first became available.

So we won't support the amendment but we will continue to work with the member for Wentworth on the intention that she is pursuing. Our view is similar in relation to expanding eligibility for the payment to a broader set of living arrangements—for example, those fleeing violence who are living in temporary accommodation. We're looking at this as part of future work to expand protection for victims and survivors of family, domestic and sexual violence, wherever they are, and we plan to consult further in relation to the changes. Unfortunately, our view is that this amendment, as it's currently drafted, may inadvertently offer benefits to perpetrators of violence in some situations. I know that's not the intent of the member, so we would have to be a little bit more careful in the drafting of the amendment to acknowledge the intent of the member for Wentworth.

While I won't be supporting this second amendment from the member for Wentworth, I do think that we can work together to progress the intention of her amendments.

Question negatived.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 4), insert:

(2) Schedule 2, page 29 (after line 23), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 4 — Time limit on debt recovery

Division 1 — Amendments

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999

15 Section 93B

Repeal the section, substitute:

93B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings or any action under a provision of this Part for the recovery of a debt or overpayment may not be commenced after 6 years has elapsed since the overpayment was made.

Social Security Act 1991

16 Section 1234B

Repeal the section, substitute:

1234B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Chapter, legal proceedings or any action under a provision of this Chapter for the recovery of a debt or overpayment may not be commenced after 6 years has elapsed since the overpayment was made.

Student Assistance Act 1973

17 Section 42B

Repeal the section, substitute:

42B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings or any action under a provision of this Part for the recovery of a debt or overpayment may not be commenced after 6 years has elapsed since the overpayment was made.

Division 2 — Application of amendments

18 Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to a debt that is raised before or after this item commences.

The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 bill contains a number of changes to the social security law that I and many others broadly welcome, particularly the expansion of debt waiver provisions. It also includes what I believe is an attempt at a nuanced and reasonable response to the issue of income apportionment debts. This was a method which was found to be unlawfully applied and which the Department of Social Services itself estimates has been used since the 1990s and could affect about three million people. While I would argue for waiving or writing off all of these debts, I can see that the minister has navigated a sensible pathway here.

What is missing from the bill is the commitment to address a key outstanding recommendation of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, and that is the reintroduction of a six-year limitation on debt recovery actions by Services Australia. The importance of this recommendation cannot be overstated. Two years have now passed since the royal commission report was handed down, and, frankly, there's no good reason that this simple reform has not yet been implemented. So that is exactly what my amendments seek to do, and they do so entirely consistently with the commissioner's own comment. She said, 'There is no reason that current and former social security recipients should be on any different footing from other debtors.'

Let me be clear. The amendments as drafted don't magically disappear a debt if it has already been identified and is being pursued by Services Australia. What they do is reintroduce a bit of fairness to the system and a bit of humanity. It's a recognition that if six years or more have passed, you shouldn't suddenly have Services Australia notifying you of debts and demanding immediate payment or requesting evidence, which most people would long ago have lost or discarded. Even the ATO only requires us to keep evidence for five years.

I'm proud that we have a comprehensive income support system in this country, but I think that, even despite the robodebt royal commission, people often forget or ignore the pain, frustration and terror the system can inflict on people. Of course, a debt notice is a frightening thing at any time. But one from a government agency which relates to a payment you might have received 10 years ago—you might have no documentation and perhaps only the faintest memory of your circumstances—is quite likely to be terrifying. It's no wonder that at the core of the robodebt royal commission's findings was the simple fact that government services need to return to providing access to an effective income support system for Australians, ensuring they are treated with respect and dignity. I would like to think that this government would have this goal as its guiding principle.

I'd like to think the minister would consider this bill to be just a very small first step, with many more to come quickly, because there's a lot still to be addressed. For starters, the government could support my amendments and reintroduce the limitation on debt recovery. They could also revisit the robodebt royal commission report and the many other recommendations for which, after over two years, we're still waiting for the government's response and implementation. Just a few weeks ago I introduced my responding to robodebt bill; I'd be happy if they were wanting to adopt and progress that bill. Once the government have done that, they could then turn their attention to addressing the gross injustice in the mutual obligation scheme, which led to the illegal suspension and cancellation of the Centrelink payments of some 300,000 people between 2020 and 2024.

Of course, there's one other big thing the government could do to bring decency and humanity back to the income support system, and that's to finally raise the rates of payments to lift recipients out of poverty and to provide them with the basic human dignity to which they are entitled. I'll leave that all out there for the government to consider, but, for now, I urge the government—and, indeed, all members in this place—to take a first step and support my amendments to reintroduce a six-year limitation on debt recovery actions by Services Australia as recommended by the robodebt royal commission.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Clark. I know that this has been a point of interest for him—he's shown a real commitment for many years—as it has been for our government. He spoke about returning fairness and humanity to the social security system. Certainly, that is also our intention and desire. In his last comments, he spoke about raising the rate. I would remind him that since coming to government we've increased age and disability pensions by about $5,000 a year, we've increased JobSeeker—working-age payments—by about $4,000 a year, and we've increased Commonwealth rent assistance by up to $1,800 a year. Those initial changes, which we made to social security in the first two budgets, were an investment of around $11½ billion in a fairer system. So there have been very substantial investments already.

I want to also remind the House that it was the Albanese government that established the robodebt royal commission. We exposed a very dark chapter in Australian public administration, and we're the ones fixing it. We've agreed or agreed in principle to all 56 recommendations of the royal commission; three-quarters have already been fully completed or substantially progressed. Recommendation 18.2, relating to the statute of limitations, was agreed in principle and it's one of the recommendations that we're working on. For the measure to be effective, it needs to be carefully designed and consulted on—a process that we are carrying out thoroughly.

The previous statute of limitations was actually not as effective as it could have been and didn't provide a meaningful limit on the raising and recovering of historic debts. I remind the member that increasing the small debt waiver to $250, as he supports in this bill, means that we will waive about 1.2 million undetermined debts this financial year alone. This one measure will remove more debts from the backlog than reinstating the old statute of limitations would. Measures such as these bring with them very significant budget impacts, and, as part of our consideration approach, the government have to work through each proposal to ensure that it's of the best possible benefit for the whole community.

I assure the member for Clark that this work is ongoing, but we are not able to support his amendments at this time.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendments moved by my colleague the member for Clark. I acknowledge what the minister has just said to us and thank her for her careful consideration of the recommendations of the final report of the royal commission into robodebt and acknowledge that it was established by the Albanese Labor government.

I am heartened that these amendments and the argument put by the member for Clark are under consideration, more broadly, by the minister and her department. It is tremendously important that, at all times, we act with fairness and humanity, as the minister just pointed out and as the member for Clark so eloquently described. It's critical that the recommendations of the royal commission, which the government have agreed to, are enacted because we can never forget and we must not forget. As parliamentarians and as legislators, we cannot allow this ever to be repeated. We simply can't allow the most vulnerable in our community to come up again against the might of an automated and dispassionate government system set up deliberately—let's not forget—to target them.

The amendments would place a six-year time limit on debt recovery actions. It is, effectively, a statute of limitations, and I thank the minister for explaining that, because it's useful. I think this is what we seek. The public, more broadly, seeks nuanced understanding of the rationale for government to act or not act, to act immediately or to delay and consider. So it's really useful to have that explanation.

In light of what the minister said and in addition to it, I still think that, ultimately, recovering social security debts with a time limit is a fair approach and that there should be some limitation on the length of time. It's practical that this be brought in line with ordinary law because ordinary law has such a thing. I think that there is actually no reason why social security debts should be treated differently to any other kind of debt.

In 2016 the former coalition government removed the previous six-year limit. It allowed debts to be pursued at any time, and we've seen the consequences of that—devastating consequences. I would argue that there's probably not a member of this House of Representatives who cannot cite devastating stories from their own electorate of the impact of this. I know I have countless stories. The decision by the coalition government in 2016 opened the door to chasing very, very old debts—years after the fact. These were debts that the member for Clark has said people would not even know that they had. Worse still, these debts were often the result of government errors, not their own. This is serious.

The bill before the House today recognises that governments make mistakes. This bill—and the intention with which the minister puts it—demonstrates as clearly as you could possibly demonstrate that thousands of people never even knew that they were being overpaid due to income apportionment. We know that chasing people down for these unknown and often minor debts years down the track is not only unfair but actually unconscionable. It's why I ultimately welcome so many parts of this bill that will provide some justice and recourse for victims of income apportionment, including the small debt waiver and the resolution scheme. It was really useful again to hear the minister talk about what that will ultimately do.

Even the mere existence of limitless debt recovery powers is ultimately, though, a failure of fairness in our social security system. It's not how a trustworthy system should work, and it hasn't been rectified in the almost 10 years since the coalition government enacted this. The robodebt royal commission recommended restoring the six-year limit by repealing section 1234B of the Social Security Act. I back that recommendation in full. The government has accepted it in principle, and I understand that you're working towards this, so I really encourage you to continue to do so. I thank you for the courage in what you've done so far, and I ask you to continue that courage and adopt this recommendation as quickly as you possibly can. Reinstating the time limit will encourage Services Australia to act promptly to keep proper records and to fix errors early rather than pursuing people years later. Ultimately, that will reduce harm, and that's what we're all seeking to do. I thank the member for Clark for raising in a debate, and I urge the minister to continue to act with haste to sort out this last problem.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Clark is seeking the call?

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, please, Deputy Speaker. I just want to say, through you, to the minister: I do get some comfort from your response to my amendment, and I am prepared to put my trust in you and what you've just said—that you are progressing and working on all of the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission. It had been my intention to call a division on this amendment, and I will now not be seeking that division. I would add, though: the country is watching. The country was outraged by robodebt and is looking to the government to move as quickly as it humanly can to implement those recommendations, in particular to bring that time limit on the recovery of debts into line with all the other time limits we have in this country.

I make the point again of an example I gave 10 years ago about someone. Heavens—the company they worked for possibly doesn't even exist anymore. They can't get payslips. I remember, during the furore of robodebt when it first blew up, talking to a constituent who, over the period that Services Australia were asking for documentation, had held four jobs, and two of those companies didn't exist anymore. The weight is on the government, but I put my trust in the minister. Hopefully, this can be resolved as quickly as possible.

Question negatived.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a replacement explanatory memorandum and a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (2) to (25) as circulated together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit "Schedules 3 and 4", substitute "Schedules 3, 4 and 5".

(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 22 (line 16), after "act", insert ", failure".

(3) Schedule 2, item 1, page 22 (line 22), after "act", insert ", failure".

(4) Schedule 2, item 1, page 22 (line 27), after "act", insert ", failure".

(5) Schedule 2, item 1, page 22 (line 28), after "act", insert ", failure".

(6) Schedule 2, item 2, page 23 (line 12), after "act", insert ", failure".

(7) Schedule 2, item 2, page 23 (line 18), after "act", insert ", failure".

(8) Schedule 2, item 2, page 23 (line 22), after "act", insert ", failure".

(9) Schedule 2, item 2, page 23 (line 24), after "act", insert ", failure".

(10) Schedule 2, item 3, page 24 (line 3), after "act", insert ", failure".

(11) Schedule 2, item 3, page 24 (line 9), after "act", insert ", failure".

(12) Schedule 2, item 3, page 24 (line 15), after "act", insert ", failure".

(13) Schedule 2, item 3, page 24 (line 17), after "act", insert ", failure".

(14) Schedule 2, item 4, page 24 (line 29), after "act", insert ", failure".

(15) Schedule 2, item 4, page 24 (line 35), after "act", insert ", failure".

(16) Schedule 2, item 4, page 25 (line 2), after "act", insert ", failure".

(17) Schedule 2, item 4, page 25 (line 4), after "act", insert ", failure".

(18) Schedule 2, item 6, page 26 (line 11), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".

(19) Schedule 2, item 6, page 26 (after line 13), at the end of section 99, add:

Note 2: If the Secretary suspects that there may have been fraud or serious non-compliance in relation to a debt waived under this section, the waiver does not prevent the Secretary from taking further appropriate action against the debtor or any other person.

(20) Schedule 2, item 7, page 26 (line 21), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".

(21) Schedule 2, item 7, page 26 (after line 23), at the end of section 197, add:

Note 2: If the Secretary suspects that there may have been fraud or serious non-compliance in relation to a debt waived under this section, the waiver does not prevent the Secretary from taking further appropriate action against the debtor or any other person.

(22) Schedule 2, item 11, page 27 (after line 19), at the end of section 1237AAA, add:

Note 3: If the Secretary suspects that there may have been fraud or serious non-compliance in relation to a debt waived under this section, the waiver does not prevent the Secretary from taking further appropriate action against the debtor or any other person.

(23) Schedule 2, item 12, page 28 (line 8), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".

(24) Schedule 2, item 12, page 28 (after line 10), at the end of section 43D, add:

Note 2: If the Secretary suspects that there may have been fraud or serious non-compliance in relation to a debt waived under this section, the waiver does not prevent the Secretary from taking further appropriate action against the debtor or any other person.

(25) Page 37 (after line 11), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5 — Benefit restriction notices

Part 1 — Social Security Act amendments

Social Security Act 1991

1 Subsection 23(1)

Insert:

AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

ASIO Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

benefit restriction notice means a notice under section 38MA or 38N.

senior AFP member has the same meaning as in the Criminal Code.

2 Subsection 23(1) (definition of Home Affairs Minister )

Repeal the definition.

3 Subsection 23(1) (definition of security notice )

Repeal the definition.

4 Part 1.3B (heading)

Omit "on security grounds".

5 Section 38L

Repeal the section, substitute:

38L Simplified outline of this Part

Persons may lose social security payments or concession cards if they:

(a) are the subject of an arrest warrant in respect of a serious violent or sexual offence; or

(b) might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country.

6 Section 38M (heading)

Omit "on security grounds".

7 Subsection 38 M( 1)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

8 Subsection 38 M( 1) (note)

Repeal the note, substitute:

Note: A benefit restriction notice is a notice under section 38MA or 38N.

9 Subsections 38 M( 2) to (4)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

10 After section 38M

Insert:

38MA Benefit restriction notice from AFP Minister

(1) The AFP Minister may give the Minister a written notice requiring that this Part apply in relation to a specified person if:

(a) the person is the subject of an arrest warrant issued in Australia in respect of a serious violent or sexual offence (within the meaning of Division 395 of the Criminal Code); and

(b) the person has not been arrested under the warrant; and

(c) a cancellation request for the person has been made as mentioned in subsection (2).

Cancellation requests

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), a cancellation request has been made for the person if a request to cancel the person's social security payments or concession card (however expressed) has been made, in writing:

(a) by a senior AFP member or a member of a State or Territory police force whose rank is equivalent to the rank of a senior AFP member; and

(b) to any of the following:

(i) the AFP Minister;

(ii) the Minister;

(iii) the Minister administering the Human Services (Centrelink) Act 1997;

(iv) the Department;

(v) the Human Services Department.

Considerations for giving a notice

(3) Before giving a notice under this section, the AFP Minister must have regard to the following:

(a) the extent to which the person is likely to be a threat or danger to the community while the person is not arrested under the warrant;

(b) the likely effect of the operation of section 38M on the person's dependants, if the AFP Minister is aware of those dependants.

(4) The Secretary of the Department administered by the AFP Minister must:

(a) seek the advice of the Human Services Secretary in relation to paragraph (3)(b); and

(b) inform the AFP Minister of that advice.

(5) Subsection (3) does not limit the matters to which regard may be had.

11 Section 38N (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

38N Benefit restriction notice from ASIO Minister

12 Section 38N

Omit "Home Affairs" (wherever occurring), substitute "ASIO".

13 Section 38P

Omit "Home Affairs", substitute "ASIO".

14 Section 38R (heading)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

15 Section 38R

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

16 Section 38S (heading)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

17 Section 38S

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

18 Section 38SA (heading)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

19 Section 38SA

Omit "the Home Affairs Minister must consider whether to revoke a security notice", substitute "the Minister who gave a benefit restriction notice must consider whether to revoke the benefit restriction notice".

20 Paragraph 38SA(b)

Omit "the Home Affairs", substitute "that".

21 Section 38T (heading)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

22 Subsection 38 T( 1)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(1) If the AFP Minister or the ASIO Minister has given a benefit restriction notice, that Minister may, by written notice given to the Minister, revoke the benefit restriction notice.

23 Paragraph 38T(4)(b)

Omit "Home Affairs Minister revokes the security notice", substitute "AFP Minister or ASIO Minister revokes the benefit restriction notice".

24 Application

The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to arrest warrants issued before, on or after the commencement of this item.

25 Transitional

A security notice that was:

(a) given under section 38N of the Social Security Act 1991 (as in force before the commencement of this item); and

(b) in force immediately before that commencement;

continues in force (and may be dealt with) at and after that commencement as if it were a benefit restriction notice given under that section as amended by this Part.

Part 2 — Family Assistance Act amendments

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999

26 Subsection 3(1)

Insert:

AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

ASIO Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

benefit restriction notice means a notice under section 57GIA or 57GJ.

senior AFP member has the same meaning as in the Criminal Code.

27 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Home Affairs Minister )

Repeal the definition.

28 Subsection 3(1) (definition of security notice )

Repeal the definition.

29 Division 7 of Part 3 (heading)

Omit "on security grounds".

30 Section 57GH

Repeal the section, substitute:

57GH Simplified outline of this Division

Individuals may lose family assistance if they:

(a) are the subject of an arrest warrant in respect of a serious violent or sexual offence; or

(b) might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country.

31 Section 57GI (heading)

Omit "on security grounds".

32 Subsection 57 GI( 1) (heading)

Omit "Security notice", substitute "Benefit restriction notice".

33 Subsection 57 GI( 1)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

34 Section 57GI (note 1)

Repeal the note, substitute:

Note 1: A benefit restriction notice is a notice under section 57GIA or 57GJ.

35 Subsections 57 GI( 2) to (4)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

36 Subsection 57 GI( 7) (heading)

Omit "Security notice", substitute "Benefit restriction notice".

37 Paragraph 57GI(7)(a)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

38 After section 57GI

Insert:

57GIA Benefit restriction notice from AFP Minister

(1) The AFP Minister may give the Minister a written notice requiring that this Division apply in relation to a specified individual if:

(a) the individual is the subject of an arrest warrant issued in Australia in respect of a serious violent or sexual offence (within the meaning of Division 395 of the Criminal Code); and

(b) the individual has not been arrested under the warrant; and

(c) a cancellation request for the individual has been made as mentioned in subsection (2).

Cancellation requests

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), a cancellation request has been made for the individual if a request to cancel the individual's family assistance (however expressed) has been made, in writing:

(a) by a senior AFP member or a member of a State or Territory police force whose rank is equivalent to the rank of a senior AFP member; and

(b) to any of the following:

(i) the AFP Minister;

(ii) the Minister;

(iii) the Minister administering the Human Services (Centrelink) Act 1997;

(iv) the Department;

(v) the Human Services Department.

Notice may recommend payments to payment nominee

(3) A notice under this section may recommend that payments of family assistance of the individual, to the extent set out in the notice, be paid to a payment nominee of the individual under Part 8B of the Family Assistance Administration Act.

Considerations for giving a notice

(4) Before giving a notice under this section, the AFP Minister must have regard to the following:

(a) the extent to which the individual is likely to be a threat or danger to the community while the individual is not arrested under the warrant;

(b) the likely effect of the operation of section 57GI on the individual's dependants, if the AFP Minister is aware of those dependants.

(5) The Secretary of the Department administered by the AFP Minister must:

(a) seek the advice of the Human Services Secretary in relation to paragraph (4)(b); and

(b) inform the AFP Minister of that advice.

(6) Subsection (4) does not limit the matters to which regard may be had.

39 Section 57GJ (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

57GJ Benefit restriction notice from ASIO Minister

40 Section 57GJ

Omit "Home Affairs" (wherever occurring), substitute "ASIO".

41 Section 57GK

Omit "Home Affairs", substitute "ASIO".

42 Section 57GM (heading)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

43 Sections 57GM

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

44 Section 57GN (heading)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

45 Sections 57GN

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

46 Section 57GNA (heading)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

47 Section 57GNA

Omit "the Home Affairs Minister must consider whether to revoke a security notice", substitute "the Minister who gave a benefit restriction notice must consider whether to revoke the benefit restriction notice".

48 Paragraph 57GNA(b)

Omit "the Home Affairs", substitute "that".

49 Section 57GO (heading)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

50 Subsection 57 GO( 1)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(1) If the AFP Minister or the ASIO Minister has given a benefit restriction notice, that Minister may, by written notice given to the Minister, revoke the benefit restriction notice.

51 Paragraph 57GO(4)(b)

Omit "Home Affairs Minister revokes the security notice", substitute "AFP Minister or ASIO Minister revokes the benefit restriction notice".

52 Application

The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to arrest warrants issued before, on or after the commencement of this item.

53 Transitional

A security notice that was:

(a) given under section 57GJ of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (as in force before the commencement of this item); and

(b) in force immediately before that commencement;

continues in force (and may be dealt with) at and after that commencement as if it were a benefit restriction notice given under that section as amended by this Part.

Part 3 — Paid Parental Leave Act amendments

Paid Parental Leave Act 2010

54 Section 6

Insert:

AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

ASIO Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

benefit restriction notice means a notice under section 278BA or 278C.

senior AFP member has the same meaning as in the Criminal Code.

55 Section 6 (definition of Home Affairs Minister )

Repeal the definition.

56 Section 6 (definition of security notice )

Repeal the definition.

57 Division 5 of Part 6-1 (heading)

Omit "on security grounds".

58 Section 278A

Repeal the section, substitute:

278A Simplified outline of this Division

Persons may lose parental leave pay if they:

(a) are the subject of an arrest warrant in respect of a serious violent or sexual offence; or

(b) might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country.

59 Section 278B (heading)

Omit "on security grounds".

60 Subsection 278 B( 1)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

61 Subsection 278 B( 1) (note)

Repeal the note, substitute:

Note: A benefit restriction notice is a notice under section 278BA or 278C.

62 Subsections 278 B( 3)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

63 After section 278B

Insert:

278BA Benefit restriction notice from AFP Minister

(1) The AFP Minister may give the Minister a written notice requiring that this Division apply in relation to a specified person if:

(a) the person is the subject of an arrest warrant issued in Australia in respect of a serious violent or sexual offence (within the meaning of Division 395 of the Criminal Code); and

(b) the person has not been arrested under the warrant; and

(c) a cancellation request for the person has been made as mentioned in subsection (2).

Cancellation requests

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), a cancellation request has been made for the person if a request to cancel the person's parental leave pay (however expressed) has been made, in writing:

(a) by a senior AFP member or a member of a State or Territory police force whose rank is equivalent to the rank of a senior AFP member; and

(b) to any of the following:

(i) the AFP Minister;

(ii) the Minister;

(iii) the Minister administering the Human Services (Centrelink) Act 1997;

(iv) the Department;

(v) the Human Services Department.

Considerations for giving a notice

(3) Before giving a notice under this section, the AFP Minister must have regard to the following:

(a) the extent to which the person is likely to be a threat or danger to the community while the person is not arrested under the warrant;

(b) the likely effect of the operation of section 278B on the person's dependants, if the AFP Minister is aware of those dependants.

(4) The Secretary of the Department administered by the AFP Minister must:

(a) seek the advice of the Human Services Secretary in relation to paragraph (3)(b); and

(b) inform the AFP Minister of that advice.

(5) Subsection (3) does not limit the matters to which regard may be had.

64 Section 278C (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

278C Benefit restriction notice from ASIO Minister

65 Section 278C

Omit "Home Affairs" (wherever occurring), substitute "ASIO".

66 Section 278D

Omit "Home Affairs", substitute "ASIO".

67 Section 278F (heading)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

68 Section 278F

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

69 Section 278G (heading)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

70 Section 278G

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

71 Section 278GA (heading)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

72 Section 278GA

Omit "the Home Affairs Minister must consider whether to revoke a security notice", substitute "the Minister who gave a benefit restriction notice must consider whether to revoke the benefit restriction notice".

73 Paragraph 278GA(b)

Omit "the Home Affairs", substitute "that".

74 Section 278H (heading)

Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice".

75 Subsection 278 H( 1)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(1) If the AFP Minister or the ASIO Minister has given a benefit restriction notice, that Minister may, by written notice given to the Minister, revoke the benefit restriction notice.

76 Application

The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to arrest warrants issued before, on or after the commencement of this item.

77 Transitional

A security notice that was:

(a) given under section 278C of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 (as in force before the commencement of this item); and

(b) in force immediately before that commencement;

continues in force (and may be dealt with) at and after that commencement as if it were a benefit restriction notice given under that section as amended by this Part.

With this bill, the government is delivering a fairer, more efficient social security system. We heard from members of this House on Monday and again just now about the importance of these changes for people right across our country. The amendments I'm moving today make generally technical changes to provide for more effective debt administration and service delivery. They clarify the intent behind the suite of amendments provided for in schedule 2, which reform debt and waiver arrangements. The government is also proposing new schedule 5 for the bill, which provides for the use of benefit restriction notices to cease social security payments and concessions in certain circumstances relating to alleged offenders of serious violent or sexual offences who are evading arrest.

In relation to schedule 2, the amendments are minor and technical in nature and are intended to remove any doubt behind the circumstances in which the broad and special circumstances waiver may apply. The changes delivered through this bill give Services Australia extended powers to waive social security debts that have been incurred because of coercion or financial abuse. The government's amendments clarify that this expanded eligibility for the waiver means that it applies in all cases of coercion or financial abuse, including failures to comply with the law. We have had significant interest in this element of the bill.

We also heard some harrowing accounts in this place from members whose previous careers gave them real personal insight into the need for this provision. I want to particularly thank the members for Bonner, Barton, Maribyrnong, Curtin and Wentworth for their contributions. I want to assure all members that this text provides for the Services Australia decision-maker to be able to take a person's full situation into account and apply the waiver when coercion or abuse are present.

The government's amendments also reinforce the application of compliance measures relating to the small debt waiver by clarifying that the secretary may take appropriate action where a person is seen to be manipulating the waiver or perpetrating fraud.

Fraud represents a small minority of debts. We know that people generally engage with the social security system honestly and in good faith, but the small debt waiver is not for those involved in significant noncompliance or fraud. The government will continue to take appropriate action, including prosecution, in the most serious cases where individuals have illegally manipulated the waiver or committed fraud.

We are also proposing a new schedule 5, which provides for the use of benefit restriction notices to ensure people who are subject to an outstanding arrest warrant for a serious violent or sexual offence can no longer be supported through the social security and family payment system. I have to reiterate that this is for people who are subject to an outstanding arrest warrant for a serious violent or sexual offence.

There's currently no lawful authority to cancel a person's payments or concessions in these circumstances. We propose this new power to be used only in the most serious circumstances, and only following a thorough and considered decision-making process. But our reasoning is clear: fugitives suspected of committing serious violent or sexual offences should not be receiving taxpayer funded income support payments, and it should be possible to cancel those payments.

This amendment provides for a person's payments from Services Australia or their social security concession cards to be able to be cancelled when they are subject to an outstanding arrest warrant for a serious violent or sexual offence and are evading police. The cancellation decision will also consider the extent to which an individual is likely to be a threat or danger to the community. It includes all social security payments, like jobseeker and age pension payments, family assistance payments and paid parental leave. It also applies to concession cards like the pensioner concession card and the low-income healthcare card.

This change will uphold the integrity of our social security system and ensure that those who are accused of serious violent or sexual crimes and are evading police cannot benefit from it. These people are accused of serious violent or sexual crime, there is an arrest warrant for them, they are evading police and they are considered to be a potential threat to the community. These are very high barriers.

The amendment will provide for a benefit restriction notice to be issued in the name of an individual while a warrant for a serious violent or sexual offence within the meaning of the Criminal Code Act 1995 is out for their arrest and they are on the run. A written request to cancel the individual's payments and/or concession card from an appropriately senior member of the Australian Federal Police or a state or territory police force will be required. Prior to the issuing of a benefit restriction notice, consideration will be given to the extent to which a person is likely to be a threat or danger to the community.

Prior to the issuing of a benefit restriction notice, consideration will be given to the extent to which the person is likely to be a threat or danger to the community and the impact that the cancellation of the person's payments and/or concession card may have on any dependents the individual may have. The power to issue a notice will be given to the minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. That minister is currently the Minister for Home Affairs. This minister is to obtain advice from Services Australia about any dependents a person has prior to issuing a notice.

These are carefully considered amendments and, should the parliament support them, will be carefully put into practice. It's common sense. It's in line with community expectations that taxpayer funded support should not go into someone's bank account if they're running from the law, accused of serious, violent or sexual offences.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.